Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:yes and no (Score 1) 773

by ShinmaWa (#32461472) Attached to: J. P. Barlow — Internet Has Broken the Political System

so obviously, we need a strong central authority to monitor and control the economy to keep it healthy.

Caaaaaareful there. While I understand the point you are trying to make, the words "strong central control" and "economy" is basically the approach of Soviet-type Communism, which is as bad than a purely capitalistic one.

The fact is that it has been shown time and time again that the answer to the "Libertarian myth" or "Socialism myth" is not to run to the other extreme, but to sit somewhere in the middle. Reasonable regulation, yes. Central control of the economy, absolutely not. The hard part is to find the definition of "reasonable regulation" as it means something different to everyone.

Comment: Re:Legal or Not, WHY Did This Happen? (Score 4, Informative) 418

by ShinmaWa (#32289784) Attached to: Google's Streetview Privacy Snafu Prompts Lawsuit

Why was the Google StreetView system collecting this data to begin with?

To build a database of open wifi hotspots for Wi-Fi Geolocation to add location-based services to Android, much like how the iPhone and iPod Touch use Skyhook to do the exact same thing.

Glad I could help.

Comment: Re:Teabaggers are not for small government (Score 1) 457

by ShinmaWa (#32178796) Attached to: The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy

As of yet, the internet hasn't failed. How about we wait until it does before we start getting all paranoid

Point well taken, even if it conflicts with the rest of your post. You say that you want to wait here.. but then propose a bunch of changes, most of which would require new laws. You can't have it both ways.

Who says it has to be one centralized one?

You did: Have A regulated (even non-profit) independent company (can't be owned by an ISP) run and maintain the network. I can understand if that is not what you meant, but it is what you implied.

Comment: Re:Teabaggers are not for small government (Score 2, Interesting) 457

by ShinmaWa (#32177618) Attached to: The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy

Look at the SEC and what good their regulation did. They totally ignored Bernie Madoff (under Bush) and Enron (under Clinton), giving regular folks a false sense of security in the market. If there was no SEC, people wouldn't have a default assumption that the market isn't rigged and they would invest more carefully.

I really don't like comments like this as they are completely unproductive. Why, Fred over there got robbed for all the good the laws and cops did! Guess we shouldn't have any laws or cops at all, giving the folks a false sense of security that they can leave their homes without being armed to the teeth.

*sigh* The idea is not to abolish something when it fails, the idea is to see where something failed and improve upon it.

The answer isn't to regulate the internet, it's to get rid of the whole monopoly provider system. Have a regulated (even non-profit) independent company (can't be owned by an ISP) run and maintain the network, deriving its revenue from the ISPs wishing to use it.

This fails in a number of ways. First of all, you are just replacing a bunch of local monopolies with one big centralized one. With your suggestion of just regulating THEM, you end up really regulating the Internet. Welcome back to square one. Worse yet, your "centralized non-profit" would likely be a Government Sponsored Enterprise. As you say about the Health Department, GSEs don't have a great track record of providing great service, because they have little motivation to do so.

Lastly, the end-point "provider" companies in your scheme would struggle to find some way to differentiate their product from others. Price can only go so far, so then you'll get into network segmentation, walled gardens, "premium content", etc.... Net Neutrality effectively done for.

So, with your scheme you get the worst of both worlds -- you get a huge centralized (and probably government run) monopoly AND no net neutrality to boot.

Comment: Re:If it's like their other acquisitions (Score 5, Informative) 94

by ShinmaWa (#32136364) Attached to: Google Acquires BumpTop Desktop

It'll languish for a few years

More like hours. Right after they were bought, the software was EOL'ed. The "Pro" version was pulled immediately and users were given a week to download the Free version.

Whatever Google plans to do with it, they don't want it available in its current form. This leads me to believe they want to kill it on Windows to use on ChromeOS.

Comment: You aren't imagining things.... (Score 2, Informative) 94

by ShinmaWa (#32136354) Attached to: Google Acquires BumpTop Desktop

No.. you aren't imagining things. It WAS on Slashdot for about 10 minutes on Monday, specifically talking about the fact that immediately after Google bought them, the software was no longer available for sale and you could only download the free version until... well.. today.

Then it suddenly disappeared, only to reappear just before the BumpTop download cutoff.

Comment: Nothing can be "completely secure" (Score 1) 389

by ShinmaWa (#32130592) Attached to: The Desktop Security Battle May Be Lost

There are several ways to make online banking completely secure.

Sorry, but you just lost all credibility right here. Anyone who claims that anything can be "completely secure" is either a) trying to sell something or b) clueless. You can say something is "more secure" or that something provides better security, but nothing, ever, will be "completely secure".

Comment: Re:Missing the Point (Score 1) 574

by ShinmaWa (#32090944) Attached to: State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor

How this trick works is I have someone - camera at the ready pointing at your laptop, filming... and then I email you a NSFW image. When your email client previews the image, ZOMG you are looking at porn. Guilty!

After seeing the video, I have to admit I was wondering why there was a camera zoomed in SOOOoooo close onto a senator's laptop computer.

I mean, it's not like this was a senator caught playing solitaire in a wider shot. Also, there was supposedly something more interesting going on, like a speech about an abortion bill. Why would a cameraman think to himself, "I know! Let's ignore the speech and zoom in on $randomSenator's laptop screen! That's interesting!" unless he knew something interesting was about to happen....

Comment: Pot... kettle... black... (Score 1) 574

by ShinmaWa (#32090800) Attached to: State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor

This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

Speaking of people not paying attention.....I realize that you might not have read the article, but you could have at least read the TITLE, which said he's a state senator -- meaning that he votes don't affect the entire country -- just Florida.

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields